Lukasz Olejnik opines:
While I once hoped 2017 would be the year of privacy, 2024 closes on a troubling note, a likely decrease in privacy standards across the web. I was surprised by the recent Information Commissioner's Office post, which criticized Google's decision to introduce device fingerprinting for advertising purposes from February 2025. According to ICO, this change risks undermining user control and transparency in how personal data is collected and used. Could this mark the end of nearly a decade of progress in internet and web privacy? It would be unfortunate if the newly developing AI economy started from a decrease of privacy and data protection standards. Some analysts or observers might then be inclined to wonder whether this approach to privacy online might signal similar attitudes in other future Google products, like AI.
[...] What Is Fingerprinting? Device fingerprinting involves collecting information about user devices, such as smartphones or computers, to create a unique identifier, often to track people or their activities as they browse around the web. This data may include IP addresses, browser user-agent strings, screen resolution, or even details like battery discharge rate. Fingerprinting is particularly concerning because it can be passive—requiring no user interaction. Data is collected without the user's knowledge and linked to their device. Upon subsequent browsing, systems can recognize the same visitor, enabling ad tracking or uncovering private information, such as browsing habits.
This form of identification is neither transparent nor user-friendly. Users are often unaware it is happening, and when done without their consent, awareness, or other legal grounds, it breaches laws. Unlike cookies or other mechanisms, such identifiers cannot be easily "cleared," making them especially invasive. Nevertheless, websites, advertising technologies, and others have continued to use them. Remarkably, large technology companies like Apple and Google once vowed not to engage in such practices. This commitment marked a major achievement for privacy, driven by advancements in privacy research and engineering. Large platforms even began competing to enhance user privacy, benefiting users' welfare and reducing the risk of data misuse or leaks. This issue cannot simply be reduced to "Google does this, and the ICO critiques it."
The editorial goes on to describe the Google Ads policy change, discusses why it's drastic, and notes the contradictions it creates.
Originally spotted on Schneier on Security.
Previously: ICO Puts Foot Down on Google's Planned Fingerprinting Change
« Massive Space Debris Crashes Into Kenyan Village | Pornhub Pulls Out Of Florida, VPN Demand 'Surges 1150%' »
Related Stories
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Google has announced plans to allow its business customers to begin "fingerprinting" users next year, and the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) isn't happy about it.
Fingerprinting involves building a user profile using information about a device's software and hardware, rather than the use of something like cookies, for advertisement targeting. Despite publicly claiming in 2019 that fingerprinting "subverts user choice and is wrong," Google has apparently decided it's not that big of a deal if third parties are doing it using Google's own services.
While not mentioning fingerprinting by name in a statement or overview of planned Ad Platform changes for February 16, 2025, Google did state that it would allow partners to use "data signals" including IP addresses, "web beacons … or other identifiers" to build device profiles for better serving ads.
"In the past decade, the way people engage with the internet changed dramatically," Google said to justify the move. The Chocolate Factory cited connected TVs as one device type that needs to serve ads that can't collect user data in the traditional manner.
The ICO doesn't want UK businesses to think they'll be off the hook for relying on fingerprinting, however. ICO executive director of regulatory risk, Stephen Almond, said his office will continue to hold businesses accountable because fingerprinting isn't transparent enough to meet UK privacy standards, and is likely to reduce people's choice over how their data is collected and used.
"We think this change is irresponsible," Almond said. "Businesses do not have free rein to use fingerprinting as they please. Like all advertising technology, it must be lawfully and transparently deployed – and if it is not, the ICO will act."
Almond said the ICO is engaging with Google "on this u-turn in its position." Google confirmed to The Guardian that it was in discussion with the ICO about the shift, but maintains user privacy will be protected despite the change.
Google, which in the past has used the motto "don't be evil" to explain its core philosophy, also reversed course this year on a promise to eliminate third-party cookies from Chrome.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 08, @07:54PM (3 children)
So they/"partners" can better guess stuff like which devices are in the same vehicle?
(Score: 3, Funny) by owl on Wednesday January 08, @08:35PM (2 children)
Possibly better fingerprinting?
(Score: 2) by hopdevil on Wednesday January 08, @08:49PM
They aren't mutually exclusive
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 09, @12:59AM
Then for the NSA/FBI etc you might also flag phones that are suspected of suddenly being in use by someone else.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday January 08, @09:12PM (1 child)
"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." - Scott McNealy, CEO, Sun Microsystems, 1999 [pcworld.com]
Is he wrong? If so, how?
(Score: 2) by Ox0000 on Friday January 10, @06:28PM
He is/was wrong in the "get over it" part. That part was presumption, arrogance, and cowardice.
He would have been less wrong if he finished the sentence with "get angry about it and do something about it".
An assertion that I have nothing to hide, is an admission that you have no reason to look!
Remember that a citizenry's freedoms are interdependent, to surrender your own privacy is really to surrender everyone.
I'll remind you of this blurb:
To those wo don't think Mr. McNealy was wrong (and I'm not saying you are - after all, Poe's Law may lurk around the bend), how about they own up to it, and enable full, complete, deeply penetrating invasions into their own private lives.
No takers? Thought so...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Wednesday January 08, @09:21PM (5 children)
Eh... sorry this was more of a green-site rant than an on-topic post. It still blows my mind they couldn't see this on the horizon but any time something is connected to the net jokes about Skynet fly around like it was the Cliche Airport. I'm bitter.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday January 08, @09:55PM (2 children)
Don't you worry, the how-to manual "1984" and accompanying video tutorial "The Terminator" will have everything on track in no time.
Once upon a time, privacy was a thing we as Americans cared about. It was one of those things we used to pride ourselves on, along with freedom of speech. Now, it seems like we're turning into a version of dystopia that sci-fi stories of years past warned about.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday January 08, @10:03PM
Yep. Someone pointed out what watching a Zombie movie must be like right now, you know... like that bit where the dude hides his definitely-infected wound until it's too late.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 09, @02:27AM
Hardly. Where are the actually-hovering hoverboards and the suspiciously hackable billboards and the aviator shades and every man on the planet wearing their hair in mullets? No, this is more like that line about the boot stamping on a human face...but with extra dumb.
I want off this ride.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 09, @12:41AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 09, @08:51AM
Youtube now halts any video after 60 seconds and "something-went-wrong"s it.
Interestingly, if there is a video you really need to see, and you can put up with the hassle, just append "&t=60s" to the end of the URL. It will play the next minute. Then "&t=120s", and it will play the next minute.
Well. you get the idea, you can watch the whole video this way.
I'm hoping one of the ad-block heroes notices this and add an extension to increment it each time the video stops.